Ezell Decision

I listened to the audio and cant see how chicago thought they would win. The judge asked their lawyer how can you have a straight face. they asked gura, what do you want the injunction to say?
Its hard to believe but I think after so many law suits this city will have to comply or this court will get tired of their foolishness

Exodus 22:2-3
If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.

Gun control is not about guns, it's about control. Once they have all the guns, they'll also have complete control.-Abolt

From a concealed carry perspective and in relation to the two pending Federal cases against Madigan and Quinn, the most important thing to take away from the case is the following rule:

"Labels aside, we can distill this First Amendment doctrineand extrapolate a few general principles to the SecondAmendment context. First, a severe burden on the coreSecond Amendment right of armed self‐defense will requirean extremely strong public‐interest justification and a closefit between the government’s means and its end. Second,laws restricting activity lying closer to the margins of theSecond Amendment right, laws that merely regulate ratherthan restrict, and modest burdens on the right may be moreeasily justified. How much more easily depends on therelative severity of the burden and its proximity to the coreof the right."

Clearly an outright ban on carrying of weapons for self defense implicates the "core" of the second amendment and the prohibition on the carrying of weapons in the entire state is not a "close fit" between the government's means and ends. If I were a legislator I would be scrambling to pass HB 148 before a federal judge strikes down Illinios' ban on concealed carry outright.

Attached Files

Stung by the result of McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the City quickly enacted an ordinance that was too clever by half. Recognizing that a complete gun ban would no longer survive Supreme Court review, the City required all gun owners to obtain training that included one hour of live‐range instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits. This was not so much a nod to the importance of live‐range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court.

Second, please read through the decision. There is a lot of stuff in there. But what the court specifically did was to reverse the decision of the district court (which upheld Chicago's ban on gun ranges) and remanded the case back to the lower court, telling them to issue a preliminary injunction consistent with the reasoning of this decision. It's the reasoning of the decision that can only be understood by reading it.

So basically, yes, the 7th circuit court said that Chicago's ban on gun ranges was unconstitutional and cannot stand.

"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."Lewis Carroll, 1872

Almost... It's what the Appellate Court orders the District Court to tell Chicago to do... IMO The injunction instructions to the district court (pg 48/49 especially) are soooo broad they won't make the case moot even if Chicago thinks so. Effectively the court told the district court that ANYTHING that affects the ability to qualify to own a gun [listing a bunch of sections] is to be enjoined and is probably unconstitutional... I luv it. And as it is our district it is BINDING on Illinois!

Almost... It's what the Appellate Court orders the District Court to tell Chicago to do... IMO The injunction instructions to the district court (pg 48/49 especially) are soooo broad they won't make the case moot even if Chicago thinks so. Effectively the court told the district court that ANYTHING that affects the ability to qualify to own a gun [listing a bunch of sections] is to be enjoined and is probably unconstitutional... I luv it. And as it is our district it is BINDING on Illinois![/quote]thats what i need to know, thanks.

Second, please read through the decision. There is a lot of stuff in there. But what the court specifically did was to reverse the decision of the district court (which upheld Chicago's ban on gun ranges) and remanded the case back to the lower court, telling them to issue a preliminary injunction consistent with the reasoning of this decision. It's the reasoning of the decision that can only be understood by reading it.

So basically, yes, the 7th circuit court said that Chicago's ban on gun ranges was unconstitutional and cannot stand.[/quote]it's broke,it works half the time.

I only have one thing to say on this since it is still ongoing litigation... TaDa:)

And that is probably enough for now ...

My congrats to the plaintiffs and supporters of this case, ISRA included. I am carefully reading through this decision and must say there is some serious gold in there that will affect far more than the mere fact that Chicago currently bans gun ranges.

"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."Lewis Carroll, 1872

I did an interview with WBEZ this afternoon. At the end I was asked about this being an NRA suit. I told them it was not, that it was brought by SAF, ISRA and Alan Gura and they should be commended for their win today.

Many know that I have my disagreements and differences with SAF and Gura. That should not detract from what they accomplished today. This is not just about gun ranges. The 7th Cir court of appeals stepped out of the shadows of the Supreme Court and started a new path for the 2A.

When a judge writes:

"R

OVNER, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment.

Stung by the result of

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the City quickly enacted an ordinance that was too clever by half. Recognizing that a complete gun ban would no longer survive Supreme Court review, the City required all gun owners to obtain training that included one hour of live‐range instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits. This was not so much a nod to the importance of live‐range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court. The effect of the ordinance is another complete ban on gun ownership within City limits. That residents may travel outside the jurisdiction to fulfill the training requirement is irrelevant to the validity of the ordinance inside the City. In this I agree with the majority: given the framework of Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald, the City may not condition gun ownership for self‐defense in the home on a prerequisite that the City renders impossible to fulfill within the City limits. The plaintiffs have a strong likelihood of success on the merits of that claim and the district court should have granted an injunction against the operation of the ordinance to the extent that it imposed an impossible pre‐condition on gun ownership for self‐defense in the home. There are two obvious ways for the City to remedy this problem: it may either drop the requirement for one hour of live range training or it may permit live‐range training within the City limits. "You take notice. The city has been told, you repsect what the Court said or else you do so at your own peril.

there are issues of standing, the core right, outisde the home, and such that this opinion adresses. The anti-gunners should be cleaning their drawers out after this. The opinion is 59 pages plus 25 of the new ordinance which I do not believe will stand the Ezell standard.

this has implications on RTC and more. It is a good day and Alan Gura and SAF And ISRA deserve the chance to take a bow for what they achieved today. The war is not over, but we just scaled the walls of Normandy with this decision.

While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

This is great news! I do not mean to hijack this thread but on page 7 of the ruling in the footnotes it says there is an exemption for discharge of a firearm for game bird hunting in limited parts of the city.

Is anyone familiar with where these limited parts of the city are? I would have never of thought Chicago would still allow hunting within its city limits.

Since a shooting range is covered by the 2A, certainly a gun shop is. Time for someone to step up and request a business license to open up a gun store that the city can deny. More fodder to make Gura wealthy.

bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

I think Emanuel is facing one of the many defining moments that will greet the new mayor. We're about to find out if he is an anti-gun zealot or has simply been anti-gun enough to succeed in federal politics.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis

I don't think they will. They're already on record admitting that the ordinance was an attempt to preempt court intervention. I think they realize that even if they take that route that a favorable en banc outcome for them will be appealed to the SCOTUS. Jmho here but I don't think Emanuel has the stomach or the money for another fight there after the bill he got for the last trip.

I don't think they will but who knows. If asking for en banc review was being considered should the decision go against the city, I don't think they would have hurried to get in the new ordinance allowing ranges. In fact, passing the new ordinance could possibly now weaken their case. Part of their argument was that ranges were dangerous. Now they've in effect conceded that maybe they may not be quite as dangerous as we said earlier. If they were smart they would go back and bring the new ordinance into accordance with the recent decision and avoid future litigation. Of course the catch here may be the "if they were smart" part.

I don't think they will. They're already on record admitting that the ordinance was an attempt to preempt court intervention. I think they realize that even if they take that route that a favorable en banc outcome for them will be appealed to the SCOTUS. Jmho here but I don't think Emanuel has the stomach or the money for another fight there after the bill he got for the last trip.

Rham can also claim new guy on the job and pass the following of bad policy on the old administration. This gives him an out. If he's aspiring to bigger and better things in the future politically, taking the shortshanks school of 2nd amendment theory is not a very wise political move . Is he trying to remain mayor of Chitown for life.... then fight it tooth and nail , or does he want to move up the national political ladder? Then try to let it die and solve it quietly, thru more reasonable compromise.

How he plays this will say a lot about where Rahm thinks he's heading.

You know, given how quickly the Tribune and Suntimes picked up on Rahm's new ordinance, their silence on this circuit court ruling is deafening! Chicago just got their butt kicked ... you'd think that would be hot news in Chicago.

"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."Lewis Carroll, 1872